It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist

page: 8
23
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rukas
I wonder if there is a significance in his saying "6.9 out of 7" sure rather than 9.9 out of 10 or 99%. Why out of 7?


Because the scale is 1-7 in this case ( not all scales are 1-10 or 0-100 ) .. him being 6.9 rather than 7 is akin to him saying 99.9%




posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by silent thunder
 
I find it strange that no one is quoting the Archbishop of Canterbury who also took part in this debate. He admitted that humans had evolved from apes (or non human ancestors). Dawkin's still believes that there is no God but because he is first and foremost a Scientist he does, like any good Scientist, require empirical proof (i.e. a repeatable experiment) before he would be willing to announce there is "no God" and that is a 100% certainty. Instead he gives the reasons he and other Atheists believe there is no God and says he is very sure that this is true. If anything it makes him a better Atheist and Scientist by stating he cannot at this time provide 100% emperical prove there is no God. He cannot prove 100% there are no leprechauns, invisible unicorns or 7 dwarf's that sing, whilst mining for diamonds and having a fun time sharing a house with a single, available woman ! He can't proof God does not exist and no one else can prove God does. All we can do is look at the evidence and make up our own minds.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Hes doing a copout. I am 100% sure god exists. Why can't he be sure of his beliefs. He is a hypocrite. Anyone can say you can't be 100% sure and when proof is discovered say well I didn't say 100%. He is only a biologist and does not know anything about physics, quantum theory, general relativity, cosmology, etc..


I agree my friend...What did this stooge have a near death experience lately, and now he might believe?



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Theists have faith God exists.

Atheists have faith God does not exist.

These beliefs are like two sides of the same coin in that they both
require faith. Hence they are both religious in nature.

Only agnostics can claim to be free-thinkers, unencumbered by
religion.

No scientist should ever claim to be atheist because God (heretofore)
cannot be disproved scientifically.

In my opinion Dawkins was diminished by his claim of atheism. I would have given him more
respect if he stated he was a theist based on some personal empirical experience/evidence
than stating he was an atheist based on no empirical evidence.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by miniatus
 


Science originally has it's roots in religion. Early scientists where obviously pragmatic and serious scholars and much of today's scientific understanding is based on their early works. Their goal was to try to understand how he/she/GOD actually achieved creation.

To date science has only scratched the surface and yet has adopted the mantle that all things can be explained. Good luck Richard and all those that proclaim themselves to be atheist, Richard Dawkins has now by any definition pronounced himself to be agnostic.

It is ironic given our current understanding (if you can stretch the meaning that far) that quantum science is screaming out the existence of a creation beyond our comprehension, some of these proposed theories are so far 'out there' that it becomes easier to believe in GOD than it is to believe in a multiverse or quarks or spooky actions.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by JailTales

Your argument makes no logical sense..


Because you are illogical.


ag·nos·tic/agˈnästik/
Noun:
A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena


How does it lose meaning, if that is what we all really are?
edit on 2-24-12 by reaxi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Yes! Dawkins has finally turned to the good side - agnostic atheism! It's the only logical choice.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by miniatus
 


Is there a reason for that scale? I just found it odd. Not saying it has some deep meaning, I was just wondering why he chose to state it out of 7. Does he have a significant reason for it or did he just pick a random number?



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by miniatus
 

I am the same, I am an Atheist and have been since the age of 12 (I cannot begin to tell you the fun that caused growing up in a Catholic household, my Mum is still convinced I will "repent") but after studying religion, Buddhism is the only one that does not give me reason to think "that belief is madder than a basket of monkeys". Buddhism seems a lot less based in telling everyone else they are wrong and more focused on improving yourself, which can only be a good thing. I am still an Atheist though and when I read some of the postings on here from supposed "believers" I know for certain I made the right choice.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rukas
reply to post by miniatus
 


Is there a reason for that scale? I just found it odd. Not saying it has some deep meaning, I was just wondering why he chose to state it out of 7. Does he have a significant reason for it or did he just pick a random number?


There's no reason for 1-10 or 0-100 ... I've seen 1 in 4, 1 in 3, 1 in 5 .. your guess is as good as mine .. the scale in this case just happens to be 1:7



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Hello Professional,
I see in the time you 'haven't been home' you have managed to create a thread as well as hold conversations in three other threads, and are still online yet you can not answer my question?



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by majel42
 


I am fortunate to have many open minded religious friends.. a few feel like they are on a mission to save me, but the surprising majority of them truly question me out of apparent willing to want to understand my position.. and I absolutely love that.. one of my dearest friends is deeply religious and we have many in depth conversations.. we have wonderfully respectful discussions..



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Sounds alot like a 'relent' of sorts. Significant (as far as you would want to credit Dawkins with any authority on the matter) in that, it is giving ground...
Clearly, he has 'modified' his position to, at least, entertain the thought that he might be erroneous in his stance...and as other posters have stated, therefore hedged his bets...

The numbers are irrelevant...the movement is significant...

Akushla



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by kennyb72
reply to post by miniatus
 


Science originally has it's roots in religion. Early scientists where obviously pragmatic and serious scholars and much of today's scientific understanding is based on their early works. Their goal was to try to understand how he/she/GOD actually achieved creation.

To date science has only scratched the surface and yet has adopted the mantle that all things can be explained. Good luck Richard and all those that proclaim themselves to be atheist, Richard Dawkins has now by any definition pronounced himself to be agnostic.

It is ironic given our current understanding (if you can stretch the meaning that far) that quantum science is screaming out the existence of a creation beyond our comprehension, some of these proposed theories are so far 'out there' that it becomes easier to believe in GOD than it is to believe in a multiverse or quarks or spooky actions.



Many things have root in religion .. but that really is irrelevant ... religion as well as science was born out of the urge to explain what we don't understand.. religion approached it by filling in the gaps with stories of the imagination.. science has taken the position of pragmatically trying to explain it through hypothesis, theory and proof .. so you can call it evolution of the mind
..

Please remember that religion is much older than Christianity .. region also once believed in Zeus, Thor.. the sun God Ra .. and many many others...



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   
The fact that he chose 6.9 out of 7 means he has went away from the 99.9% convinced their is no God, to 98.5%. It seems he's subtly letting us know he may be having a change of heart.

No scientist, worth his salt gives a percentage on the validity of God. You believe, don't believe, or are undecided.

Dawkins is not a famous scientist. He is a famous atheist. Although he is a scientist, he has only made a name for himself on the debate circuit, arguing against God.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by addygrace
The fact that he chose 6.9 out of 7 means he has went away from the 99.9% convinced their is no God, to 98.5%. It seems he's subtly letting us know he may be having a change of heart.

No scientist, worth his salt gives a percentage on the validity of God. You believe, don't believe, or are undecided.

Dawkins is not a famous scientist. He is a famous atheist. Although he is a scientist, he has only made a name for himself on the debate circuit, arguing against God.


It means he said he's a 6.9 out of a scale of 7 .. you're being silly and presumptious ..

Science is science.. 99.9% is a percentage he has given, any scientist worth his or her salt would answer the same..
edit on 2/24/2012 by miniatus because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/24/2012 by miniatus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rukas
reply to post by miniatus
 


Is there a reason for that scale? I just found it odd. Not saying it has some deep meaning, I was just wondering why he chose to state it out of 7. Does he have a significant reason for it or did he just pick a random number?


It is because Dawkins devised a scale of religiosity from 1 - 7. 1 being absolutely 100% believing in an intervening god. 7 being 100% certain there is no god. Wilting varying degrees of belief or lack of in between. I put myself at about 5.5 - 6. I don't believe in any form of higher power - but think some ideas are worth investigating.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23
I feel sorry for you...I really do. You must live a thoroughly miserable life if it all comes down to survival and then dying. How utterly depressing.

And narrow-minded.

It's neither depressing nor narrow-minded. I could just as easily say that the crazy things you apparently believe give you a ridiculously false sense of purpose as well as a smug superiority. But I guess that's what gets you through your day...



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by izero

Originally posted by Rukas
reply to post by miniatus
 


Is there a reason for that scale? I just found it odd. Not saying it has some deep meaning, I was just wondering why he chose to state it out of 7. Does he have a significant reason for it or did he just pick a random number?


It is because Dawkins devised a scale of religiosity from 1 - 7. 1 being absolutely 100% believing in an intervening god. 7 being 100% certain there is no god. Wilting varying degrees of belief or lack of in between. I put myself at about 5.5 - 6. I don't believe in any form of higher power - but think some ideas are worth investigating.


True enough.. I think I would place myself at precisely the same .. 6.9 out of 7 .. which to me equals 99.9% on a scale of 0 to 100 .. unless you want to be nit picky..
.. I think Dawkins is being clear on his intent.. especially since he's said in other interviews that he's 99.9% sure.. we're arguing over decimals .. which is petty



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ComeFindMe
The rational approach would be to accept that we can never be 100% certain - though i've yet to find a practising Christian who would even entertain the notion or remote possibility that there may not be a god....


Quite. All he's doing is expressing the scientific method - you test a theory to destruction with the evidence you have available. You make a decision based on that testing. But there may be further evidence in the future which forces you to adapt the theory. This is not proof that science is wrong - it only shows that the scientific method is very sensibly open to complexity and doubt. It welcomes change and contradiction. That is one thing that the fundamentalist religious believer will never do.




top topics



 
23
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join